So basically here is not only a story from Chicago Breaking News about the SCOTUS ruling, but also an indication of how city Aldermen will vote. Not only a possible no vote from one alderman indicated on the blog (which is a neighborhood blog for Chicago's Sixth Ward district), but also some possible yes votes in favor of gun rights for Chicago residents.

Well, this isn't a surprise a lot of articles in the lead up mentioned that Daley was considering a response to the expected ruling, but for some reason he's keeping his response close to his chest. That leads to the next link that came much earlier in the day.

This shouldn't be a big surprise. The fight over gun control in Chicago will not end with this ruling, but this link is of note because this may indicate another possible yes vote in favor of individual guns rights in Chicago.

Most interesting to me about the Thomas opinion in McDonald is its
frank recitation of the racist roots of gun control laws, which were
intended to disarm blacks, especially after the Civil War and — in the
case of New York’s Sullivan Law — sometimes recent immigrants as well.
Justice Thomas relies heavily on Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond’s pathbreaking article on this subject, which I highly recommend to interested readers.

To understand the paradox, think of the two arguments Chicago made
to the Supreme Court. First, Chicago argued that the Second Amendment
is not incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Five of the nine Supreme Court Justices agreed with Chicago on this
point -- Justice Stevens in his lone dissent; Justices Breyer,
Ginsburg, and Sotomayor in Justice Breyer’s dissent; and Justice Thomas
in his concurrence in the result. To be fair, Justice Thomas had a
different reason for agreeing with Chicago than the others, but he
ultimately agreed that the Due Process Clause does not incorporate the
Second Amendment.

Second, Chicago argued that the Second
Amendment is not incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges
or Immunities Clause. This argument was based on the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases,
which seriously restricted the meaning of that clause. Although that
decision has been criticized from all quarters, the Court has stuck to
it, including eight Justices today. Those Justices relied on the Slaughter-House Cases, as well as the 1876 case ofUnited States v. Cruikshank,
which specifically said that the Second Amendment was not incorporated
pursuant to the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The four Justices in
the plurality stated that they “decline[d] to disturb” Slaughter-House, and the four dissenters followed the case as well. Only Justice Thomas argued for overturning Slaughter-House, saying that he “reject[s]” the case. He had more damning words for Cruikshank, saying that it “is not a precedent entitled to any respect.”

Thus,
Chicago won 5-4 on its Due Process Clause argument and won 8-1 on its
Privileges or Immunities Clause argument. Yet all the headlines are
about a victory for gun rights.